6
   

Revoking Paternity

 
 
MrIVI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 12:15 pm
@joefromchicago,
Joe, I was just coming on to select your answer as "The Answer" and you beat me to the screen credit thing. I probably could have gotten you a "Special Thanks." Anyway, I also sent you a private message with my email address so you could contact me if you were interested in getting a copy of the film on DVD when it's finally produced. It maybe filmed this fall. It would take another six month to edit. So it would be a year or year and a half from now.
MrIVI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 12:18 pm
@Butrflynet,
Yeah, hopefully it comes off more like a drama.
To tick off those people who don't like complications.
This element of the plot is just a small bit of a very complex situation involving black mail, divorce, murder, and fraud.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 12:20 pm
@MrIVI,
Not a problem. I am satisfied to toil in anonymity. And congratulations on getting your screenplay produced.
MrIVI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 12:23 pm
@joefromchicago,
Well at this stage in my career I'm just writing low-low budget script like "Tape" Uma Thurman (I didn't write that, just that style: limited locations, no stunts, etc...) But I like what I do so I'm happy.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 03:33 pm
@Butrflynet,
brilliant!
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 05:24 pm
I'm sympathetic to Mr. IVI (or LVL - I have trouble distinguishing I's and L's on Thread titles..) and alway read his posts, though I don't always contribute. I was married to a screenwriter and we had a batch of screenwriting friends. I'm no expert, but understand the wrangling and the play involved in the writing. I agree it is hard enough to get credit on a screenplay or doctoring, much less one part of/nuance of an idea.
0 Replies
 
MrIVI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 08:39 pm
@joefromchicago,
Sorry, one more quick question, if you get the chance.

I'm trying to find a legal/believable way to achieve what I want. And this is getting a little complicated.

Anyway, this is a what if:

First off let me give the characters names so we can keep them straight. We have Mark, Sarah, and Greg.

Mark was married to Sarah, but Sarah had an affair with Greg and conceived a child with him. Sarah lied about the paternity of the child claiming it was Mark's. Mark went to jail for a crime. During his time in jail, Sarah divorced him and married Greg. Greg filed a suit for paternity of the child; and a blood test indicated the child was his; plus both Greg and Sarah testified that the child was indeed his. Mark was removed as the father though not by choice; he fought to remain the legal father of the child. Later Sarah broke up with Greg, and Greg died of an accident. If Sarah reversed her statement (possibly claiming she had not had sex with Greg during the time she had conceived the child), could Mark regain paternity?

PS: In advance thanks for all your help Joe. And yeah, I admit I might have to abandon this line of thought. It's just my person belief that the more difficult the problem is the more rewarding the solution is.
dadpad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 09:56 pm
Getting way off track here i know.
Quote:
A court would never allow a paternity test when a husband was claiming that he was the father of his wife's child.

A wife wants a divorce. she goes to live with the boyfriend. The husband sues for custody.
Wife says its not your kid. boyfirend says i definitly had sex with her around the time of conception, wife says I definitly had sex with boyfriend.
Would a court not order a paternity test?

Perhaps not so far off track now that i have seen MrIVI's last post.

MrIVI.
My thinking would be for the father to adopt his wifes child. assuming the wife is agreeable to that.
I have no legal standing But it seems to me for the court to change a long standing decision there would need to be some compelling new evidence. perhaps the wife would need to stand in court and present some kind of a sob story as to why she lied about sleeping with and conceiving a child with the boyfriend. She could go to jail for perjury.

screenplay by MrIVI with greatfull thanks to the members of A2K online forum.

You see it all the time on movie credits.
Greatful thanks to the citizens of Littlerock and members of the national parks and wild life service


BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:43 pm
@MrIVI,
Given that DNA tests are now as solid as solid can be I can not see how any judge would go again such results on the words of anyone.

As Dadpad had stated with the bio father dead I however see little problem with the courts just allowing the old husband to adopt the child.

Greg family might had standing in court to block or try to block the adoption however.


0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 08:37 am
@MrIVI,
MrIVI wrote:
Mark was married to Sarah, but Sarah had an affair with Greg and conceived a child with him. Sarah lied about the paternity of the child claiming it was Mark's. Mark went to jail for a crime. During his time in jail, Sarah divorced him and married Greg. Greg filed a suit for paternity of the child; and a blood test indicated the child was his; plus both Greg and Sarah testified that the child was indeed his.

Here's where you lose me. If Sarah and Greg marry, why doesn't Greg just adopt the child rather than "claim paternity?" From a practical standpoint, it would make more sense for Greg to adopt the kid and then arrange for a private DNA test that proves that he's the father. As I pointed out before, a court would not permit a third-party to claim to be the father of a child born in wedlock. On the other hand, it is quite common for the new husband to adopt the old husband's kids -- no doubt Sarah got custody once Mark went to jail, if she hadn't already been granted custody in the divorce, and it wouldn't be uncommon for a court to approve an adoption when the ex-husband is a convict. And once he is the adoptive father, Greg can arrange for that private DNA test, so that he can tell the whole world that, not only is he the adoptive father, he's the biological father too. That also avoids the next problem...

MrIVI wrote:
Mark was removed as the father though not by choice; he fought to remain the legal father of the child. Later Sarah broke up with Greg, and Greg died of an accident. If Sarah reversed her statement (possibly claiming she had not had sex with Greg during the time she had conceived the child), could Mark regain paternity?

See, here's the deal: if Sarah testifies that Greg is the father, and then later testifies that Greg isn't the father, she's admitting that she committed perjury the first time around. That's a problem. Furthermore, courts are very reluctant to let witnesses recant prior testimony. There just aren't many opportunities for testimonial "do-overs." If Sarah says "what I said before wasn't true," a court is likely to respond: "well, she was either lying before or she's lying now, but in either case she's a liar, and we shouldn't believe anything she says."

Now, the question that I have is: does Mark remarry Sarah after Greg's death? If he does , then it's not much of a stretch to have Mark regain his parental rights. All he'd have to do is arrange for an adoption. Under my scenario, the DNA test was private, so there's no reason to go to court to reestablish paternity. Mark's paternity (as opposed to parenthood) was never lost, since the law continues to assume that he's the biological father.

If Mark doesn't remarry Sarah, then that complicates things. He can't adopt the child, because he's not married to the child's mother. He could arrange his own private DNA test, but that wouldn't do him much good, because he's not actually the biological father. If Sarah wants Mark to be deemed the biological father, she could surreptitiously slip some of Greg's biological material into the test tube in place of Mark's (the details of that operation I'll leave to your imagination), so that the test "proves" that Mark is the father.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 08:41 am
@dadpad,
dadpad wrote:
A wife wants a divorce. she goes to live with the boyfriend. The husband sues for custody.
Wife says its not your kid. boyfirend says i definitly had sex with her around the time of conception, wife says I definitly had sex with boyfriend.
Would a court not order a paternity test?

If the child was born while the husband and wife were still living together, I'm confident the answer would be "no." On the other hand, if the child was born while the couple was separated, there is a possibility that the court might order the paternity test. The presumption that the husband is the father of his wife's child, however, is pretty strong, and it would take some unusual circumstances for a court to order a paternity test in light of that presumption.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 12:23 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
He can't adopt the child, because he's not married to the child's mother
.

Where did you come up with that see the case of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie for an example of the court allowing two unmarried persons to adopt children together and in some states it is not unknown for gay unmarried couples to do likewise.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 12:41 pm
@BillRM,
For someone who's ignoring me, you certainly respond to a surprising number of my posts. Do you need me to explain the whole ignore thing to you?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 12:46 pm
@joefromchicago,
I ignore you or not at my WHIM not your.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 01:01 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
A husband is presumed to be the father of any child born to his wife during their term of their marriage. It would be extremely difficult for a husband to disclaim paternity of a child born in this circumstance. It's not as simple as ordering a paternity test -- the husband would have to overcome that presumption as well as the courts' reluctance to make a child born into an established family into a bastard. The courts are also very leery of people who change their minds about these sorts of things -- if the husband claimed he wasn't the father, and then later claimed that he was, I don't think the courts would be very sympathetic. A family court wants, above all else, to make sure that the child has a father, not a rotating cast of putative parents, which is why there's the presumption that the husband is always the father. There are plenty of stories of men who are held responsible for raising children fathered by somebody else.

In Arizona, there is a presumption of paternity if a man is married to the mother within 10 months of the birth, and there is also a presumption of paternity if a DNA test affirms at least a 95% probability of paternity, and there is a presumption of paternity if a man sign the birth certificate of a child born out of wedlock. Any presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, and if there are two or more presumptions that apply, the court is to determine which should take precedence based upon "weightier considerations of policy and logic." Arizona courts routinely find paternity with the biological father, even though the child is born during the mother's marriage to another man -- other states are more reticent about doing that. Whether the Court would reverse course and find the husband to be the father, merely because all three parties are in agreement, is another thing entirely. While I suppose it is theoretically possible, the court would probably need to make specific findings as to how such a ruling would be in the best interests of the child. Of course the biological father could consent to the adoption of the child by the husband (step-parent adoption), and that is routinely done.
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 01:05 pm
@MrIVI,
MrIVI wrote:
Mark was married to Sarah, but Sarah had an affair with Greg and conceived a child with him. Sarah lied about the paternity of the child claiming it was Mark's. Mark went to jail for a crime. During his time in jail, Sarah divorced him and married Greg. Greg filed a suit for paternity of the child; and a blood test indicated the child was his; plus both Greg and Sarah testified that the child was indeed his. Mark was removed as the father though not by choice; he fought to remain the legal father of the child. Later Sarah broke up with Greg, and Greg died of an accident.

Hey ... I recognize that fact pattern. I represented Greg. Except Greg did not go to jail, and he did not die in the end.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 01:14 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

I ignore you or not at my WHIM not your.

Funny. That's what I do.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 01:15 pm
@Ticomaya,
Your entire post is premised on the absurd notion that Arizona has laws. I refuse to accept that.
MrIVI
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 04:14 pm
@joefromchicago,
Thanks for all the information.
It looks like I will have to find a different route to achieving this goal.
I do think for several reasons having paternity re-instated would be too difficult if not impossible given what I've read hear.
And the adoption just doesn't seem to work in the story due to the fact that there's no remarriage.
So I'm going to have to work on it.
I hate dead-lines.
But thanks you've all been a great help.
0 Replies
 
MrIVI
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 04:16 pm
@dadpad,
Code:Perhaps not so far off track now that i have seen MrIVI's last post.


Yeah, I think at least I'm getting a feel for what can and cannot be done.

And I'm certainly not against a special thanks to Able2Know. I'm actually going to try to get Able2Know a special thanks for all the ideas I've gotten to bounce around here, but I'm not in the position to guarantee anything.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Revoking Paternity
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 06:50:51